I am having a flip-flopping, JG moment on that issue. I am going to wait now with/after all the recent development.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Pre-Media Event: Eddy Cue or Not Based on Unnamed Reliable Sources AW Reveal
- Thread starter cleirac
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I am having a flip-flopping, JG moment on that issue. I am going to wait now with/after all the recent development.
Perhaps so.
However you cannot fault my wishes for hoping that more people would be able to afford the model they would like.
In all honestly I am expecting a $1500 - $2000 price bracket.
That I feel is 100% genuine and realistic without any "lets just slap on a crap load of profit for the hell of it"
Looking forward to Monday, when at least SOME people will be surprised.
Let's hope its the high price speculators that are most shocked. Don't you agree?
Do you agree with me, that it would be nice if the price it lower so that more can afford the model they would like?
Yup. I'd be shocked if the price is $999, but I agree it'd be nice.
For me, the problem with a $999 price point would be having to talk myself out of getting one. Maybe for the 2nd gen....
Why are you preoccupied with wanting everyone to be able to afford the model they want? I'm getting the SS myself and couldn't care less if the Edition model is $1,000 or $10,000 or $100,000.
Because I'm not self centred.
I don't really car about "me" I could buy any model I want at any price.
That's not the point.
It makes me happy if more people can get what makes them happy
Trust Apple. Their premium priced iGadgets are worth it in the long term, though AW will be unlike any other. For sure, their team have had endless long debates considering all their talks with many experts etc. You may not like the sob stories or the saga they are building up for the AW, but those are the same things I love about Apple. From my experience of buying iGadgets since the time I started earning disposable money even long before the first iPod was introduced / born - never had a broken iGadgets even after I passed it to my siblings - it is like, they worked from generations into generations until we all moved on to the next and sold them.
Perhaps an even better question is why someone who has no iPhone and is not even buy an
Watch is so totally preoccupied with it. Also what will they do after launch day when we all have the Watch and turn our attention to usage issues.Because I'm not self centred.
I don't really car about "me" I could buy any model I want at any price.
That's not the point.
It makes me happy if more people can get what makes them happy
Great. However, I do no think this forum has posters who will be upset if Apple Watch is not worth more than $5,000.
Great. However, I do no think this forum has posters who will be upset if Apple Watch is not worth more than $5,000.
Sadly, and I'm being serious and sad here.
I feel we have people here that will actually be unhappy if too many people will be able to have the model they want.
It makes me sad, but I know there are people here that want to deny people things and get a personal kick out of owning things they feel others can't afford
Sadly, and I'm being serious and sad here.
I feel we have people here that will actually be unhappy if too many people will be able to have the model they want.
It makes me sad, but I know there are people here that want to deny people things and get a personal kick out of owning things they feel others can't afford
I wish am that rich to feel upset if it will not be as exclusive I want it to be. However, I kind of understand why they feel that way being a fashion conscious (or shallow
) myself because I do not want to be wearing the same thing what millions of people are potentially wearing too. I think with wearables, you want that exclusivity, this is why we need millions more permutations of the case/face/bands/shape in the next gens. I am fine with their other past gadgets which were produced by the millioms because they are not something I wear - they are in my pockets or bags most of the time. They are not really very "personal".Having said that, if I am that uber rich and really want exclusivity, I will spend extra and bring it to some other makers to further customize it for me, like add some more blings
... Anyway, I am more of a minimalist now except for iGadgets and clothes - I just want an affordable AWE with the new Apple Gold as a collection - I will never sell or give it away. It might become my humble iHoly grail that I will pass on before I die.True, "fluoroelastomer" sounds fancier than saying "synthetic rubber".
Thanks. Okay then. I concede they do have such a patent, and that I could be very wrong. Mark this day
All Apple has ever said is that it's "up to twice as hard as standard gold." There's no such thing as "standard gold", and they didn't specify a karat, so I assumed they were comparing to "pure gold".
However, perhaps they simply want to avoid saying that they're mixing powered gold with a powdered ceramic, to form an 18kt equivalent composite material that's not all metal.
Why not? Would people look down on such a gold alloy? Actually, I guess they probably couldn't even call it an "alloy" since it's not all metal. The patent calls it a "mixture", mixed in a mold and heated up.
I'm sure we'll hear a lot more about the process on Monday if it is something that they want to tout. It's entirely possible that they acquired a small privately held metallurgical company that was working on new alloys. I'm not sure it's technically incorrect to call a mix of metal and metalloids an "alloy." Also, I'm guessing the rose gold uses at least some copper to achieve the color like typical rose gold alloys.
I don't think anyone would "look down" on 18kt gold just because the other 25% is boron and other chemicals in ceramic vs. a metal such as zinc or nickel that is nearly as abundant and cheap. Apple didn't take pains to have the FT update the "around $4,500" unconfirmed pricing for the Edition like they did with the stainless steel (which leads me to believe that the $699 pricing is right - it will be at least $499 for the base). If Apple has found a way to mass produce 18kt gold that's structurally sound enough to make a thinner case, then that is a real advantage vs. others who may need to resort to gold plating to achieve the same structural rigidity (at least until another alloy or method becomes commercially viable).
----------
Great. However, I do no think this forum has posters who will be upset if Apple Watch is not worth more than $5,000.
$5k is my sweet spot. If it is that much or less, I'm in. Above that, I'll need to think about it.
Me too. $5k or less is my sweet spot. And I'll think about depending on what they say if it is more than $5k.
You want Apple to take a loss because you want a gold watch but don't want to pay for it? There's no way a proper 18-karat gold watch will be $999 without Apple taking a loss on it.
With the FT article saying "around $4,500" and Apple not quietly correcting it, like they did when the original article erroneously stated that the stainless steel would start at $349 like the aluminum, I'm thinking now that the $4,000-$5,000 estimate may be right, at least for the model with the synthetic rubber band, and possibly for all of them, since they are using leather rather than metal links.
If true, we have to thank Piggie. He might had been able to sway Apple (a little bit) much more than JG. Hehe Piggie had a more convincing case with his elaborated post and compelling diagram. However, at this point, it could still be lower or higher because hmmmmm, not $4.5k?, it is a bargain and a real Apple Gold innovation for the masses then - if it is higher, FT forgot the Apple tax / premium and for it being an Apple Gold.
Of course not, no one will "take a loss"
I just find it slightly funny that you are using the phrase "proper 18 karat watch"
When, it's fundamentally NOT a "proper 18 karat watch" in any way, shame or form in the 1st place.
It's a computer with a screen in a little case on a strap. Not a "proper watch"
There is no comparison at all as it's a totally different product.
----------
If true, we have to thank Piggie. He might had been able to sway Apple (a little bit) much more than JG. Hehe Piggie had a more convincing case with his elaborated post and compelling diagram. However, at this point, it could still be lower or higher because hmmmmm, not $4.5k?, it is a bargain and a real Apple Gold innovation for the masses then - if it is higher, FT forgot the Apple tax / premium and for it being an Apple Gold.
I just find it funny how many "stick in the muds" we have.
To me it's like someone saying, Hey, this new car invention should cost XXX because the horse and carriage costs XXX and the car kinda looks like the same product
If true, we have to thank Piggie. He might had been able to sway Apple (a little bit) much more than JG. Hehe Piggie had a more convincing case with his elaborated post and compelling diagram. However, at this point, it could still be lower or higher because hmmmmm, not $4.5k?, it is a bargain and a real Apple Gold innovation for the masses then - if it is higher, FT forgot the Apple tax / premium and for it being an Apple Gold.
The actual news part of the FT is still suggesting it is a $10,000 item.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fc1b9aaa-c31c-11e4-ac3d-00144feab7de.html#ixzz3TjGpw5e2
So does the Daily Mail.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...edented-away-affordable-luxury-trademark.html
Perhaps. John Gruber wrote on Twitter that he doesn't think using the new alloy will result in a reduction of the price.
What is your take given that the Edition was advertised quite prominently in Vogue, as opposed to, say How to Spend It? You don't really see ads for expensive watches in Vogue, though you do see everything from ads for a $75 bottle of perfume to a handbag that runs into the thousands of dollars. It could just be an attempt at a halo effect, but if it is "overpriced" will it have the opposite effect?